More Essays from School from Spring 2006

Dear Readers!

I have lots and lots of essays and response papers saved on my computer! Here are some of them that I don’t think have found their way to Telemoonfa Time yet! I like them! Sometimes!!! Sometimes I don't like them! Here they are! Don't feel like you have to read them! They're boring! Each essay will be seperated by !!!

!!!

I Can’t Get No Grammar-Faction

or

Why Can’t Johnny Point To the Dangling Modifier?

Some teachers claim that public schools should discontinue the teaching of prescriptive grammar. These teachers cite studies, which have shown that there is no connection between a grasp of grammar and quality writing, to defend their claim. Maybe they are correct. Maybe schools should stop teaching prescriptive grammar. However, because of the demands of standardized testing and in light of revelation we have received from the Grammar Gods, public school English teachers will continue to frequently say the following words: “noun”, “preposition”, “adverb”, “adjective”, “conjunction”, “subject”, “object”, and “that sentence is wrong”. So, since we have to teach prescriptive grammar, we should figure out the best way to teach it.

But before I address effective grammar-teaching strategies, I want to quote Williams response to the grammar instruction issue. He says, “Many teachers, administrators, and parents have discounted the research and proceeded as though the findings don’t exist, putting students through exercises and drills year after year. Others have seen them as a rationale for ignoring grammar instruction. Neither response is appropriate.” Right now, I agree with him. (Maybe I’ll change my mind later.) I think that grammar should be taught because it lets students examine language in a way that they couldn’t before. It lets students know more about the language they speak. Language is a major difference between us and the animal kingdom, so, when we learn about language, we learn about humanity. Also, teaching grammar provides students with a vocabulary to use when talking about literature. They can also use this grammar vocabulary to discuss other students writing in writing workshops. For these reasons, I believe that the teaching of grammar should go on. I think teachers just need to figure out how to make it more interesting than my grandmothers’ slideshow, complete with her lengthy commentary.

With the rationale behind teaching grammar being addressed, now it’s time to re-ask: what are the best approaches to teaching grammar? I believe that a good approach to teaching grammar involves some of the things I discussed in my previous paragraph. Students should be taught that grammar examines language, which is a main ingredient in our humanity. Williams says that, “Effective teaching, therefore, must differentiate between grammar and usage.” (Williams, 180) In other words, it’s important to teach students between prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar. We should tell our young pupils that the words “correct” and “incorrect” when applied to language use are only kosher in the English department hallways of Yale or Cambridge or some other snooty university. Elsewhere, “correct” and “incorrect” when applied to language use will get you a bloody nose, a fat lip, or at least a degrading nick name.

Williams chapter on grammar was interesting and enlightening. It helped me gain a new respect for grammar and helped me understand why teaching grammar is still important, even though it may be a chore sometimes.

In conclusion, I can’t get no grammar-faction. I’m torn between teaching the stuff putting the stuff in the trash can. But I have a few more years before I start teaching, so hopefully I’ll figure it out before then.

!!!

Two Questions and Two Corresponding Answers

1) In your opinion or experience, what are some of the most important concepts about writing that secondary students need to learn?

I am amazed when I hear that Jack Kerouac wrote On the Road in about three weeks, in one straight shot, without any revision. How can anybody do that? How can a person develop such strong characters, memorable scenes, and sublime prose practically extemporaneously? I do not know. But I will simply say that Kerouac was an accomplished writer, a skilled craftsman, perhaps a genius, and well past high school when he wrote that novel. For the rest of us, we need to revise, revise, and revise.

Therefore, I feel that an important concept that secondary students must absorb is the concept of revision. Students need to learn what revision is and how it produces better writing. Barry Lane shares my opinion. (Or should I say that I share Barry Lane’s opinion?) Lane says in the preface of his book, After The End, “From my work as a writer I know that revision is more than a stage in a four- five- or seven- step process; it is the source of the entire process.” (Lane, Barry, After The End, [New Hampshire: Heinemann, 1993], p.5). Good writers know that a story, a poem, an essay, or some other type of writing must go through several steps of revision before it is complete.

Another important concept about writing that students should learn is how to make their subject interesting. I love the “Growing Leads” activity on page 13 and 14, where the teacher tells an un-detailed story about the scary dog, thus generating curiosity in the students. The students ask for more information; they ask for details. The students know what they want to hear and what is interesting to them. They want to know what makes a particular story interesting or important. In the “Growing Leads” activity, Barry Lane magnificently reenacts childlike curiosity, illustrating why it is important to make your subject, what you are writing about, interesting.

2) What kind of writing teacher do you want to be?

I want to help students become better writers by emphasizing creative writing. I believe that writing short stories, poems, and creative non-fiction helps students become better writers more than studying grammar or filling out worksheets does. I also want to assign a large amount of writing to my future students. My favorite high school English teacher, Mr. Encianas, gave us piles and piles of writing homework. We had to write original poems, fake TV scripts, and those types of assignments. The students frequently read their original writing to each other. We all could naturally tell what worked and what did not work; what was interesting and what was boring. In other words, we understood what good writing was and we all worked as a team to become better writers. In that class we also read many novels and short stories and discussed what made those novels good pieces of literature. As we became more comfortable and familiar with good books, we were more likely to imitate the style and language of those good books.

I enjoyed Lane’s comments on page 15. Lane says that too often students are given writing assignments that require them to answer questions. Such assignments would read something like, “What was the name of the dog in the story?” Or, “What did the copper token symbolize?” In Lane’s words, students are “taught to write answers, to be experts, to lie.” (Lane, 15) Lane says that in contrast to this popular approach to teaching writing, “good writing is fueled by unanswerable questions.” (Lane, 15) I want to be a writing teacher who encourages students to explore their thoughts through their writing. I want them to address big unanswerable questions in their writing. They do not need to provide explanations for the mysteries of the universe; no, they only need to discuss the mysteries of the universe.

!!!

Bad Things and Good Things About Writing Workshops In the Secondary English Classroom

A common practice in secondary English classrooms today is work-shopping, where students read each others papers and give them constructive criticism. Is this a good practice or a bad practice? Well, in my estimation, there are good things about it and there are bad things about it. First, I’ll address the bad things. Second, I’ll address the good things. As I address the good and the bad things, I’ll appeal to the writings of James D. Williams and Jim Blasingame and John H. Bushman.

The Bad Things

Writing workshops in secondary English classrooms can be fraught with ill-will, loathing, backbiting, scorn, and fear. It is a sad observation that teenagers can be poison-tounged when it comes to evaluating their peers writing. Suppose this scenario: A sensitive, artistic young man brings in a poem to be workshopped. His hypothetical lines may read: “Moroseness engulfs and envelopes my tormentuos [sic] soul/ As, as a kitten, when kittens are/ Strewn from their scratching-posts of individuality,/ I am like the kitten.” The other boys say, “Wait a minute, you’re like a kitten? That’s gay you gay-wad homosexual!” And, “You shouldn’t use “as” twice in a row.” How does the sensitive poet feel now? My guess is that he won’t be scratching on his scratching-post of individuality in front of his peers anymore. But this scenario is no fictional case-study. This story is all too real. This story… is me.

Another potentially bad thing about a writing workshop is, “If students have not learned how to analyze a paper and how to give usable feedback, teachers find that students most often make only superficial suggestions to the writer about conventions, such as spelling and punctuation. Analytical comments about the quality of the writing are often restricted to whether or not the reader liked the paper.” (Blasingame, Jim, Teaching Writing in Middle and Secondary Schools, [Ohio: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005] p. 55) Sometimes time spent in writing workshops is time wasted. If enlightened feedback is not given, then the student might as well work on the paper alone.

The Good Things

First, a secondary English teacher, with 150 students, may not have time to spend 15 minutes on one students’ writing. Writing workshops enable students to receive individualized attention.

Second, workshops also allow a student to get feedback from several different sources: students with different opinions. If 3 or 4 people all say that a specific aspect of the paper should change, then the student can be sure that that aspect should change. But if the students all have different opinions about what should change, then the writer can choose which suggestion suits him or her best. In contrast, if a teacher is the only other person who reads the writing and gives feedback, the feedback is limited.

Third, “In the workplace, reports and proposals commonly are written by teams. Before academics send their papers out for publication, they ask friends to read the manuscript and offer suggestions for improvement.” (Williams, James D., Preparing to Teach Writing, [New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2003] p. 131) When you teach students to work in teams for the purpose of producing a polished paper, you make them more prepared to enter the work force. (And isn’t that the ultimate grandiose purpose of education and enlightenment? To have a boss give you a paycheck?)

Conclusively, there are good things and bad things about writing workshops. How about we accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative?

!!!

Thoughts On Why Studying the History of Rhetoric Is Important For English Teachers, Based On a Few Personal Thoughtful Moments, the Book, and On Classroom Discussion.

My thoughts on why studying the history of rhetoric is important for English teachers, based on a few personal thoughtful moments.

I didn’t build the car I drive, but I enjoy the way it gets me quickly from place to place. I have no skill as a shoemaker, yet sturdy boots protect my feet. I did not invent the English language, but I love using it. And so, if I drive, if I walk on hot rocks, or if I talk, I am able to do so only because of the deeds of humans who have gone before me. Should I not pay homage to the people I have never met who have made my life more comfortable and fulfilling? Should I not learn about their lives, their sacrifices, their ideas, and their staunch labor?

To be caught up only in the current news is dangerous. To applaud every new thing that comes along without a historical context is unwise. Schools maintain history departments because Americans generally agree that history is important for all of us to learn.

Therefore, when one enters into a field of study, math, science, English, art, etc., it is important to know something of the history of that field of study.

My thoughts on why studying the history of rhetoric is important for English Teachers, based on the book.

James D. Williams, in his book, Preparing to Teach Writing, gives three reasons to not only justify, but to encourage the study of rhetoric’s history. First, he says that since not all current pedagogies are based on sound principles, knowledge of rhetoric’s history can help teachers spot those unsound principles. Second, he says that since classrooms and students are so diverse, no one single method works universally. An understanding of the history of rhetoric helps teachers evaluate methods and choose which one would work best for each situation. Third, he says that since social, political, and ethical dimensions affect language teaching, teachers should have knowledge of rhetoric’s history to understand why these inequities exist. (Williams, James D., Preparing to Teach Writing, [New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2003] p. 3)

My thoughts on why studying the history of rhetoric is important for English Teachers, based on classroom discussion.

In our classroom discussion, I learned more about the Platonic view of the world and the Sophist view of the world. The Platonists believe in an absolute reality, a one-truth that everybody should seek for. They emphasize morals, messages, and themes. In contrast, the Sophists believe in relative truth. They emphasize arguments, methods, and skills.
Knowledge of these two world views is important to teachers because these world-views are projected onto pedagogies, they affect teaching styles. A Platonic teacher would want every pupil to agree on the correct answer to a problem. A Sophist teacher, however, would want the students to be able to defend their positions, whatever those positions might be.

!!!

The previous 4 papers were for a class I took about how to teach writing, in the spring of 2006. The next 4 papers are papers I wrote for an African American Literature class, also in the spring of 2006.

!!!

Equiano and Wheatley Converted

Some have questioned the testimonies of early Christian African Americans. Some have suggested that the accounts of their conversions are dishonest, or that the authors of these spiritual accounts were bribed or tricked or brainwashed. Or perhaps, some say, these early African American Christians were being sarcastic when they preached of and rejoiced in Jesus Christ. However, as I read The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano and Phillis Wheatley’s poems, I sense no sarcasm. In these texts, I cannot ascertain any evidence of bribery, trickery, or brain-washings. Rather, in these texts, I see Christian writings reflecting true conversion.

First, let us hear Equiano declare his Christian faith. In chapter five of his narrative, Equiano, after finding himself in peril and after complaining against the Lord, he says, “… with contrition of heart, [I] acknowledged my transgression to God, and poured out my soul before him with unfeigned repentance, and with earnest supplications I besought him not to abandon me in my distress, nor cast me from his mercy forever (Equiano, 83 – 84). To provide another example of Equiano’s faith, in Chapter ten, which is almost entirely devoted to matters of Christian faith, Olaudah Equiano says, “I was continually oppressed and much concerned about the salvation of my soul, and was determined (in my own strength) to be a first-rate Christian.” (Equiano, 183) In these quotes and in the rest of the autobiography, I hear whole-hearted faith and devotion.

Now, let us hear Wheatley testify. In her poem “To the University of Cambridge, in New-England.” Wheatly exhorts students to feel the love of Jesus Christ with these lines: “See him with hands out-stretcht upon the cross;/ Immense compassion in his bosom glows;/ He hears revilers, nor resents their scorn:/ What matchless mercy in the Son of God!” From these lines and from the other Wheatley poems that I’ve read, I suspect no sarcasm. I take her poems as true manifestations of a devout Christian.

Still, some claim that Equiano, Wheatley and early African American Christian converts are not true converts. Skeptics claim that these people were only agreeing with those in power, white Christian males, to get more power. It is true that there were perks to converting to Christianity in the British colonies, in what is now American soil. For example, for blacks, converting meant attaining a higher social status. Black converts were respected by those in power. They could converse with white Christians using their religious language. They could discuss the Bible and Jesus with them, subjects that can transcend socioeconomic and racial boundaries. Also, black converts were more likely to get published.

So, admittedly, there were social perks offered to African Americans who converted to Christianity in the slave trade era. But does that social situation give us twenty-first century readers the right to dismiss their faith? No.

Not only did Equiano and Wheatley testify in writing of their new-found spirituality, but they viewed their sufferings and slavery as endurable because they found the gospel. In a letter to the Parliament of Great Britain, Equiano explains, “By the horrors of that trade [the slave trade] was I first torn away from all the tender connexions that were naturally dear to my heart; but these, through the mysterious ways of Providence, I ought to regard as infinitely more than compensated by the introductions I have thence obtained to the knowledge of the Christian religion” (Equiano, xxx) From this letter, we learn that Equiano feels that God guided him, although through horrible means, to Christianity. Wheatley expresses a similar sentiment. She writes in her poem, “On Being Brought from Africa to America” “’Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,/ Taught my benighted soul to understand/ That there’s a God, that there’s a Saviour too.” Here, Wheatley says she views the terrors of her passage to America as merciful, because it eventually brought her to enlightenment.

Modern day readers may be tempted to explain away such expressions of faith. Surely, some think, surely, these writers could not really have meant what they said about a slave ship being merciful, or about so much suffering being bearable because a little bit of church resulted. Unbelievers ask, “How could these writers have believed that God had a hand in something as abominable as human bondage, with the atrocities attending to it?” And so, some account for such statements by saying that perhaps these early African Americans were not truly converted, or that they were brainwashed by the whites in power, or that they only accepted Christianity for social benefits.

But why can we not take their word for it? Why are we reluctant to trust black converts when they say that they believe in Jesus Christ and that they believe in the Bible?
To understand these statements, these professions, that may seem unbelievable, it is helpful to understand something of Christianity and of faith in general. Christians believe that since the gospel of Christ is so precious, they would go through almost any pains in order to keep worshipping their God. For Biblical examples, Paul endured imprisonment, stoning, ridicule, and torture to preach the gospel. Job lost his children, his property, his friends and his health suddenly, but retained his faith. These and other people, according to Christian theology, provide examples of faith to follow. Also, these people, Paul, Job, and others, may view their trials as justified because they increased their spirituality. So, to a Christian, sufferings are bearable and even worthwhile, if those sufferings result in a closer walk with God.
I feel that both Olaudah Equiano and Phillis Wheatley were true Christians. Though they did not condone slavery and hoped for the death of that institution, they faithfully endured the hardships of their lives and still praised their God.

!!!

Masculinity According To Equiano and Douglass

Masculinity can be defined in different ways. To come to a good understanding of this word, it is helpful to consider its denotation and connotation. As for the denotation, according to the dictionary, masculinity is “something traditionally considered to be characteristic of a male” (Dictionary.com). As for the connotation, I associate masculinity with muscles, trucks, outdoor peeing , physical strength, fist fights, the color blue, deep voices, hairy chests, toughness, baseball, football, guns, hunting, and tear-free eyes. But let us depart from today's stereotypical television-screen idea of masculinity and hear the voices of two black males from centuries ago: Olaudah Equiano and Frederick Douglass. How do Equiano and Douglass define masculinity? With what do they associate manhood? To answer these questions, first, they both define and project their masculinity in their autobiographies through their accounts of their physical strength. Later, Equiano and Douglass transcend this basic notion of masculinity; they both believe that masculinity involves intellectual and spiritual empowerment; it involves being recognized as a human.

First, these men brag of their physical abilities. Douglass provides us with two accounts of physical confrontations of which he was a part. First, he tells us about his fight with Mr. Covey, a cruel slaveholder. When Mr. Covey was about to tie up Douglass, Douglass jumped up and grabbed Covey tightly by the throat. "My resistance was so entirely unexpected, that Covey seemed taken all aback. He trembled like a leaf. This gave me assurance, and I held him uneasy, causing the blood to run wherever I touched him with the ends of my fingers." (Douglass, 42) Here Douglass delights that for once after six months of being abused and disempowered, he has power over his master. His account seems to say, “He was scared. I was in charge. With just the tips of my fingers, I made him bleed.” Douglass brags of his own strength; he spends a considerable amount of time focusing on this struggle, and declaring himself as the victor.

Another physical confrontation Douglass recounts is his struggle with the carpenters in the shipyard. He asserts: "I could whip the whole of them, taking them separately. They, however, at length combined, and came upon me, armed with sticks, stones, and heavy handspikes. One came in front with a half brick." (Douglass, 57) Here Douglass explains that the only way any man could take him in hand to hand combat is if it turned out to be not hand-to-hand combat. That is, a man would have to get some weapons and some buddies to whip on Douglass. Otherwise, Douglass could knock out any one of those carpenters. Both these examples of Douglass's fighting abilities demonstrate his basic idea of masculinity: the ability to whoop on another guy.

Olaudah Equiano also shows us some moments when he was involved in fighting. First, Equiano explains that he was acquainted with fist fights at a young age. As an adolescent, aboard a ship, he was made to fight for the amusement of the sailors. He says, “This was the first time I had ever fought with a white boy; and I never knew what it was to have a bloody nose before. This made me fight most desperately; and I suppose considerably more than an hour;” (Equiano, 53) But his physical fights did not stop there. His fighting continued as he served for many years in different navies. He gives several accounts of battles on oceans and seas, and declares his integral role in the success at some of these engagements. These accounts of physical fighting, whether they were fistfights or exchanges of bullets and cannonballs, help Equiano defend his position as a tough man. It shows that his basic definition of masculinity includes having gone through such entanglements and staying alive, well and tough.

However, both these men possess a higher concept of masculinity. To transcend this basic physical definition, they maintain their manhood by representing themselves as intelligent, moral, and free-thinking men, more than the brute beasts that their masters would have them be.

Douglass, to expand his definition of masculinity, addresses the little amount of free time that slaves had: Sundays and the week between Christmas and New Years Day. He says that some slaves spent their free time with their families, if they were close by. Some did crafts. “But by far the larger part engaged in such sports and merriments as playing ball, wrestling, running foot-races, fiddling, dancing, and drinking whiskey; and this latter mode of spending the time was by far the most agreeable to the feelings of our masters” (Douglass, 44). Why would masters want their slaves to waste time this way? And why did the masters especially want their slaves to drink whiskey throughout their time off? Douglass answers these questions brilliantly when identifying the slaveholders’ motives. “Their object seems to be, to disgust their slaves with freedom, by plunging them into the lowest depths of dissipation.” (Douglass, 45) Again, Douglass explains that the slaveholders object was “to disgust the slave with freedom, by allowing him to see only the abuse of it” These quotes show that the slave masters wanted their slaves filling their lives with work or drunkenness. The masters couldn’t have their slaves reading books or thinking about their deplorable situation as slaves. Douglass, however, was not satisfied with this brute existence. He wanted to progress. He wanted power. When Douglass tells us of his desire to learn to read and write, to study the word of God, and to be free, he manifests his desire to rise above the animal kingdom.

Douglass proclaims that he is not only concerned with surviving from day to day on a scanty maintenance, nor is he satisfied solely with a little better food, sturdier walls and roofs, and less whippings, nor is he merely content with being able to beat people up now and then. Rather, he wants respect. He wants us to acknowledge him as a man. Douglass is like Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, when the latter says, "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?" (The Merchant of Venice III. i. 58-64) In the preceding lines, Shylock, a Jewish minority, poetically asserts his manhood and humanity in the midst of Christians who are mistreating him. Similarly, Fredrick Douglass, a black slave writing to a mostly white audience, proclaims his manhood.

Olaudah Equiano also portrays himself as a mature, deep thinking, literate gentleman. When he writes of his study of and conversion to Christianity, he writes, “In the evening of the day, as I was reading and meditating on the fourth chapter of the Acts, twelth verse, under the solemn apprehensions of eternity, and reflecting on my past actions, I began to think that I had lived a moral life.” (197) These words expose a thoughtful, spiritual, and individual soul. Equiano shows that he is capable of much, much more than picking cotton and being driven about by a whip-toting taskmaster. He desires more than to work and get drunk and live for a while. He is a man! He thinks with his mind, reads with his eyes, and feels with his soul.

Equiano and Douglass view their masculinity as more than the ability to beat another guy up. They hold masculinty as being inseperably connected with humanity, dignity, respect, power, humanity, and freedom.

Works Cited

Equiano, Olaudah. The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or,
Gustavus Vassa, the African. New York: Modern Library, 2004.

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1995.

Shakespeare, William. The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1997

“Dictionary.com” Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. 2006. 5 March 2006
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=masculinity

!!!

Holy Writ as Slavery Protest

The African-American abolitionists used many means to protest slavery and seek freedom. Many slaves fled to the North or to Canada to escape human bondage. Some slaves broke cotton gins or other tools to reduce the productivity and profitability of slave work. Nat Turner used weapons and violence in an attempt to overthrow slave- holders. Other African Americans used intellectual, secular, humanistic means to fight against the slavery institution; they cited the Constitution, and asserted their humanity in songs, speeches and literature. But still other blacks held a religious anti-slavery stance; they used Christianity to protest slavery. Specifically, three men, Richard Allen, David Walker, and Frederick Douglass, in opposition to slavery, all cited Christian principles and used Biblical passages. Also, negro spirituals, such as "Go Down, Moses" captured the angry, freedom-wanting feelings of the slaves.

The Right Reverend Richard Allen was the first bishop and founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. (As a testament to Allen's wide-spread influence, The A M E church still runs today. In fact there is an active chapel of this denomination right here in Flagstaff.) As such a reverend, Allen was necessarily very well versed in the Bible and familiar with Christian teachings. But this great spiritual figure was also born a slave, and therefore was intensely familiar with the cruel practices of the slave trade. As he grew, Allen desired to see the death of slavery. So, A M E church meetings were not only worship services, but forums for anti-slavery discussions. Even some of the sermons that Allen delivered from the pulpit contained abolitionist sentiments. For example, in “An Address to Those Who Keep Slaves and Approve of the Practice,” Allen says, “God himself was the first pleader of the cause of slaves” (Allen, 207). He further explains, "If you love the God of love, clear your hands from slaves; brethen not your children or your country with them” (Allen, 208). With these quotes, Allen claims that it is impossible to be, simultaneously, a God-fearing Christian and a slave-holder. But making these references to God makes his argument more high-brow, more peaceful, more reverent. Instead using secular humanism arguments by saying something like, “You better let us go because you are violating inherent human values,” he summons divine powers by saying, “You better let us go because the God of Heaven demands it.” Such claims certainly enflamed many Christian slaveholders; but, notwithstanding the backlash, Allen continued to protest slavery through spiritual means.

Frederick Douglass also uses religion to protest slavery. In his appendix to Narrative of The Life of Frederick Douglass, he associates white Christian slaveholders with the ancient scribes and Pharisees who attempted to kill Jesus in the New Testament. Douglass, to describe his enemies, quotes the following Bible verses: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness” (Douglass, 73). To place Christian slaveholders and the scribes and Pharisees in the same category of sinners certainly would have ruffled the feathers of the antebellum owners of slaves and incited mutinous emotions among slaves.
David Walker uses the biblical story of Pharaoh and Joseph in Article I of his Appeal. According to this story, Pharaoh treated Joseph, a foreigner, and his family nicely and even gave to Joseph the most fertile part of Egypt. Walker uses this story to “…show how much lower we [the African American slaves] are held, and how much more cruel we are treated by the Americans, than were the children of Jacob, by the Egyptians” (Walker, 184). Walker here establishes how badly the African American slaves were treated by comparing their treatment to ancient Israel’s treatment, when they were slaves in Egypt. After this Biblical reference, Walker again alludes to the Bible, this time using Moses as a role model for his suffering black brothers and sisters to emulate. Walker pleads, “O! that the coloured people were long since of Moses’ excellent disposition” (Walker, 185). The story of Moses is one beloved by the African American slaves, since Moses was a prophetic hero who rescued his people from slavery and brought them to the promised land. Further, according to Rupe Simms, who had an article concerning slave Christianity published in the Spring 1998 edition of the Western Journal of Black Studies, Walker declares in his appeal that, “Relative to slavery being God-ordained, Walker declares that not only was servitude offensive to God, but that the Lord will empower Blacks to liberate themselves through violent revolution” (Simms, 49). By making numerous references to the Bible, and to the Lord, Walker elevates the rationale for black liberation.

Finally, slaves used Negro spirituals to protest slavery. Several of the spirituals were sung to praise God, to cheer each other up, to express emotions, to pass the time, yet some were used to protest slavery. One of the most direct and forceful spirituals was “Go Down Moses,” a song recounting the story of God and Moses freeing the house of Israel. Richard Newman, author of Go Down, Moses, says, “African-American slaves identified themselves with Israel in bondage; they saw the master class as Pharaoh, the South as Egypt, and their own leaders, like the insurrectionist Nat Turner, as Moses” (Newman, 68).

Richard Allen, Frederick Douglass, David Walker, and the slaves who sung “Go Down, Moses,” all used Christianity as ammunition to shoot down slavery. With sermons, songs, and treatises, they fought against the slave trade in a way that could not have without such spiritual rhetoric.

Works Cited

Allen, Richard. An address to those who keep slaves and approve the practice. Patricia
Liggins Hill (Ed.) Call and response: The Riverside anthology of the African
American literary tradition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1995.

Newman, Richard. Go Down, Moses: A Celebration of the African-American Spiritual.

New York: Reed Business Information, Inc., 1995.

Simms, Rupe. Slave Christianity: A Critical Feature of Black Studies History. The
Western Journal of Black Studies Spring. 1998 v22 i1 p49.

Walker, David. (1997). Appeal. Norton Anthology of African American Literature, (180-
190) New York, Norton.

!!!

Malindy and the Caged Bird: Kindred Spirits

A poet has several responsibilities. A poet amuses, enlightens, informs, educates, and stimulates their readers with their artful use of language. Perhaps more importantly, poets also give voice to those thoughts and feelings that the audience has but cannot eloquently articulate. One such poet who gives voice to a large group of people is Paul Laurance Dunbar, who writes for his black brothers and sisters during the Reconstruction era. Dunbar himself did not receive too much mistreatment from racist whites, (Revell, 40) but he still could identify with those of his race who were not privy to such tolerance. Specifically, Dunbar writes two poems, “Sympathy” and “When Malindy Sings”, that highlight two mistreated, yet singing, characters. These characters, the caged bird and Malindy, come from the same background, sing with the same soul, and have the same desire for freedom.

First, although obviously the caged bird is an animal and Malindy is a human, they come from the same background. The caged bird sees the beauty of the outdoors through the bars of his cage, “When the sun is bright on the upland slopes;/ When the wind stirs soft through the springing grass,/ And the river flows like a stream of glass;” The bird is not delighted to see such pretty scenery, but rather the grandeur of the outdoors mocks his imprisonment inside the cage. Likewise, it may unhesitantly be inferred that Malindy is a black woman, probably during the Reconstruction era. As a black woman in those times, Malindy would have been subject to prejudice and discrimination. She would have seen the prosperity of the whites, knowing that, because of her skin color and social status, she could not be as socially successful as the whites. Even though legally she would not have been a slave, she would have been barely a step above slavery.

Next, both the caged bird and Malindy sing with the same soul. The bird’s song is not a mating call or the natural chirpings of birds at dawn. Rather, Dunbar writes that the song of the bird is a “prayer that he sends from his heart's deep core,” Hence, the bird croons with gusto. The result of such a performance is the production of a song worth hearing and contemplating. Likewise, Malindy does not perform her music like “an edicated band” would. Nor does she read music like a classical violinist or an opera singer. Malindy is more like Miles Davis when he’s improvising on the saxophone. Despite this unschooled manner or singing, Malindy uses her instinctual rhythm to move her listeners to tears and repentance. Her performance is so moving that the speaker beckons everybody to stop what they are doing to hear Malindy sing.

Lastly, the caged bird and Malindy have the same desire for freedom. The bird, as either a getaway attempt or as a frustrated reflex, beats his wings against his cage bars until the bars are stained with blood. The bird also flings his heartfelt song to Heaven, hoping that God will hear the prayer and open the cage door. Likewise, Malindy appeals to her Maker for freedom. She is not as concerned with spatial freedom as is the caged bird, for she can freely move around, yet she is concerned with spiritual freedom. She voices her desire for spiritual freedom by hollering such hymns as “Rock of Ages” and “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.”

In sum, the caged bird from “Sympathy” and Malindy from “When Malindy Sings” both come from the same background, sing with the same soul, and have the same desire for freedom. By writing poems about two characters who are unsatisfied with their current situation, Paul Laurance Dunbar gives voice to the generation of blacks during the Reconstruction era.

Works Cited

Revell, Peter. Paul Laurence Dunbar. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1979.

Dunbar, Paul Laurence. The Complete Poems of Paul Laurence Dunbar. New York:
Dodd, Mead, 1967, c1913.

!!!

These next two essays are from a Shakespeare class I took, also from the spring of 2006.

!!!

Who Is Portia?

In the The Merchant of Venice, William Shakespeare creates a controversial character named Portia. It is difficult to know how we, the audience, are supposed to view her. Are we supposed to view her as a total babe, a treasure to be won, worthy of the efforts of dozens of suitors? Are we to see her as a power-hungry manipulater? A bigot? A feminist? An anti-Semite? A victim in a patriarchal male-centric society? It is impossible to know exactly what Shakespeare thought about Portia when he wrote her character in The Merchant of Venice so many centuries ago, but now I, a college student in the twenty-first century, am attempting to find out what makes Portia tick. In this essay, I will discuss some of the possibilities. As I discuss, I will not pick one interpretation and defend it, rather, I will try to defend many interpretations. (I don’t know which one is right. Perhaps there is no “right.” Perhaps Shakespeare wanted Portia to be ambiguous, so she could be interpreted many ways.)

First, some could view Portia as a beautiful treasure, an astounding catch, a millionaire supermodel. Several men in the play describe her this way. When Bassanio first tells Antonio of the plan to pursue Portia, he says, "For the four winds blow in from every coast/ Renowned suitors, and her sunny locks/ Hang on her temples like a golden fleece,/ Which makes her seat of Belmont Colchis' strond,/ And many Jasons come in quest of her." (The Merchant of Venice, I. i. 168-172) Here, Bassanio compares the winning of Portia to winning the mythological Golden Fleece. Not only does Bassanio and other men view Portia as a wonderful prize, but, just after Bassanio opens the lead casket, Portia, speaking of herself in the third person, says: "Happiest of all, is that her gentle spirit/ Commits itself to yours to be directed,/ As from her lord, her governer, her king./ Myself, and what is mine, to you and yours/ Is now converted." (III.ii.163-167) If we are to believe Portia in these lines, she sounds like the perfect wife for the patriarchal society of Elizabethan England. So, by highlighting certain lines and down-playing others, some may believe that Portia is being honest to Bassanio in her promises, that she really will submit herself to her husband and be a living female treasure chest.

Second, we could see Portia as a manipulative, two-faced liar. Why would some make this claim? Let us return to Act three, scene two, right after Bassanio opens the lead casket and Portia declares what kind of wife she will be. After several lines about how she's "an unlesson'd girl, unschool'd, unpractic'd" (III. ii. 159) and about how she'll submit to Bassanio, Portia gives Bassanio a ring. With this ring, she gives a command, telling Bassanio that he must never lose it, sell it, or give it away. At first, we might view this ring as a sentimental sign of her affection. But later, Portia, disguised as Balthazar, manipulates Bassanio into giving her the ring. Bassanio, like a dutiful husband, resists giving Balthazar the ring, but Portia says, "I will have nothing else but only this,/ And now methinks I have a mind to it" (IV. i. 432-433) So, why would Portia tell him not to squander the ring and then try so hard to get it from him herself? Because, some would say, she is a conniving, manipulating, lying, two-faced broad.

More evidence exposing Portia as a conniving, two-faced manipulator is that she disguises herself as Balthazar, a lawyer. (I'm not sure about Elizabethan England, but presently in America, it's illegal to impersonate a lawyer.) Under this guise, Portia directs her servant, Nerrisa, to deceive the courtroom by fabricating identities and falsifying documents. Portia also delivers a brilliant speech to Shylock about the nature of mercy. In all this, Portia reveals that she is actually lessoned, schooled, and practiced.

Still another sign that Portia lies and cheats is her behavior just before Bassanio opens the lead casket. Portia sings a song, (Or other people sing the song; it is unclear.) hinting at which casket is correct. If she did indeed cheat at the lottery her father designed, that would make her an oath-breaker. For these reasons, the ring scheme, the Balthazar disguise, and the song hinting at the lead casket, Portia can be viewed as an immoral manipulator.

For another interpretation, we could view Portia as a racist. This claim can be defended with two scenes. First, when we are first introduced to Portia, she is talking with her servant, Nerrisa, about possible suitors. Nerrisa brings up several men of different ethnicities. One by one, Portia insults each hypothetical candidate. Portia says, for example, that she would not want a German, because she would like him, "Very vildly in the morning, when he is sober, and most very vildly in the afternoon, when he is drunk." (I. ii. 86-87) So, Portia stereotypes Germans as alcoholics. Afterwards, she continues to unfairly label men from different ethnic backgrounds. The second scene that reveals Portia's racist sentiments is when, disguised as Balthazar, she rips Shylock apart. Portia is not satisfied with Shylock going home with three thousand ducats rather than slicing up Antonio. No, Portia proceeds to strip Shylock of his wealth and his religion. Would Portia have destroyed him so viciously had Shylock been of Christian Venetian stock? Some think not.

Portia can also be seen as a victim, trapped in an extremely patriarchal society. She is unable to live her own life, to make her own descions, and to be powerful as a woman and as a wealthy heir. In expressing her oppression, Portia says, "O me, the word choose! I may niether choose who I would, nor refuse who I dislike; so is the will of a living daughter curb'd by the will of a dead father." (I. ii. 22-25) Even though Portia is an adult, she is bound by the wish of her father. She is not permitted the freedom to choose with whom she would like to spend her life. She is like a fairy-tale maiden locked in a tower, who must twirl her hair, sighing away the years until a valiant prince rescues her.

Another reason that Portia could be seen as a victim is that, because of her gender, Portia is unable to help Antonio properly. But, when Portia disguises herself as a man, she wields great power, insomuch that she frees Antonio and destroys Shylock. Could this be Shakespeare’s subtle way of exposing the ills of gender inequality, showing that Portia is socially inhibited because of her sex? There are many ways that audiences could view the character of Portia. They could see her as a beautiful blond heiress, a manipulative dishonorable rat, a racist bigot, or a victim of a male-centric society. It is up to each reader to make their own interpretation.

!!!

Love, According to As You Like It

Shakespeare’s play As You Like It ends with the creation of four newlywed couples: Rosalind and Orlando, Celia and Oliver, Silvius and Phebe, and, Touchstone and Audrey. With all these couples getting married, we may think the play has much to advice to offer on the subject of love. After all, most of the play consists of the action, flirtation, romance, and dreamy complications leading up to this wedding for the octet. And indeed, the play does teach about love; As You Like It teaches several lessons on that mysterious, heart-warming subject. First, it teaches us to believe in love at first sight. Second, it encourages us to believe that love is irrational and exhilarating, and that it makes the person in love do impulsive, crazy things. Third, it informs us of the baser side of love, lust. But behind the surface these teachings, Shakespeare does not have such a sunny opinion about the nature of love. He has merely crafted a fun, entertaining play that makes love more fantastic.

First, the play persuades us to believe in love at first sight. The first time Rosalind sees Orlando, Orlando defeats Charles the wrestler, and Rosalind says to Orlando, “Sir, you have wrastled well, and overthrown/ More than your enemies” (As You Like It, I. ii. 253-254). Apparently, all it takes for Rosalind to fall in love with Orlando is Orlando's successful wrestling match and the exchange of a few lines of dialogue. Likewise, all it takes for Orlando to fall in love with Rosalind is a sentimental chain and a few minutes with her in a public place. After this brief meeting, these lovebirds are convinced that they are soul mates.

Next, As You Like It teaches us that love makes one do impulsive, crazy, and mega-super-romantic things. For example, Orlando writes love poems dedicated to Rosalind and hangs them on trees in the Forest of Arden. One poem is partly like a blazon, where Rosalind’s physical features and her characteristics are listed. The poem ends with, “Heaven would that she these gifts should have,/ And I to live and die her slave.” (III. ii. 153-154) What? Does Orlando really mean that, because Rosalind is so desirable, he is willing to spend his life in unpaid servitude, just to be around his crush? Surely the behavior and poetry of Orlando is not rational. For another example of how, according to this play, love makes one do impulsive, crazy, and mega-super-romantic things, I quote some lines of Silvius, who is love-sick for Phebe. “If thou rememb'rest not the slightest folly/ That ever love did make thee run into,/ Thou hast not lov'd;... Or if thou hast not broke from company/ Abruptly, as my passion now makes me,/ Thou hast not lov'd./ O Phebe, Phebe, Phebe!” (II. iv. 34-36, 40-43) So, according to Silvius, love, to be true love, must get one into a folly, make one leave company suddenly, and yell out the would-be lovers’ name at least three times. Surely the behavior and professions of Silvius is not rational.

Third, besides the impulsive, crazy love that As You Like it advocates through Rosalind, Orlando, Silvius, and others, the play also showcases a less fairy-tale romantic type of love: the relationship between Touchstone and Audrey. Touchstone, when defending his actions to Jaques, compares his desire to marry Audrey with the technology put on animals to domesticate them, or at least to make them useful in their labor. Touchstone says, “As the ox hath his bow, sir, the horse his curb, and the falcon her bells, so man hath his desires;” (III. iii. 79-81). In this quote, Touchstone says that he is like an animal that would be useless and wild, unless, an outside mechanism (marriage) was placed upon him. Then Touchstone, to Audrey, says, “Come, sweet Audrey,/ We must be married, or we must live in bawdry” (III. iii. 96-97). Here, “in bawdry” means “in sin”. When Touchstone says he must be married or else live in sin, he means that marriage is a socially constructed institution designed to provide an appropriate place for a man and woman to copulate. So, Touchstone’s idea of love differs greatly from that of Silvius’. Silvius is a young idealistic lovesick shepherd, whereas Touchstone is a dirty lustful old man.

Considering these teachings on love, are we to take them as truth? Should we apply these principles into our lives? Are we to wait for some woman to put a sentimental chain around our necks? Ought we hem and haw away the years in singledom until the advent of some supernatural sign, confirming to us which stranger we should marry? Should we write poetry to a person we've seen or talked to in passing, and hang the poems all around town? Just how seriously are we to take Rosalind’s statement: “Love is merely a madness, and I tell you, deserves as well a dark house and a whip as madmen do; and the reason why they are not so punish'd and cur'd is, that the lunacy is so ordinary that the whippers are in love too” (II. ii. 399-404)?

Perhaps we are to believe in such fairy tale stuff; but, probably not. Probably, Shakespeare does not view love in this fanciful way. He would be mad to. Shakespeare is just writing a fun, entertaining play that allows us to escape from reality and ordinary societal rules. It is fun to think about love as a whimsical happily-ending comedic affair. We need to see an amusing version of love in plays or stories or movies. However, after the curtain is drawn, we go home to abusive relationships; arranged marriages; familiar, comfortable, boring spouses; or unattractive partners we stay with merely for the sex.

As You Like It does not portray love in a realistic manner. The play shows no long time married couple whose relationship has been tempered and renewed with time and compassion. Shakespeare, in this play, only writes about and grossly exaggerates about the exciting part of a lifelong commitment, that is, the courtship. If the Bard wrote a sequel to As You Like It, maybe he would have shown Rosalind yelling to Orlando, “Why don’t you write me anymore poems, you washed-up former wrestling champion lazy lying two-faced good-for-nothing louse?!” Or maybe we would see Silvius and Phebe arguing over who let one of the sheep wander away. Or perhaps Touchstone and Audrey would have a mentally retarded child and a hurricane would destroy their home and Touchstone and Audrey would separate, cursing the day they ever exchanged vows. We could call this hypothetical play As It Really Happens.

!!!

This next one is a creative non-fiction essay I wrote, inspired by true events from my LDS mission, which I served from 2002-2004 in the West Virginia Charleston Mission. Putting this one on my blog makes me feel more vulnerable than all the other ones above.

!!!

Missionaries in Martinsville, Virginia

Elder E. and Elder B. stared at the Martinsville map.

“It’s hard today.” Elder E. said. “Some days the streets come easy. Some days the streets come hard.” E. waited, squinted, nodded, and wrote another street name on his index card. Elder B. already had five street names picked, so he quietly waited for his companion to finish.

The map of Martinsville, Virginia, tacked on to the white apartment wall, was covered with wide strips of scotch tape. Pushpins, dotting the map, had small white labels glued to their heads. On the labels were written names like, “The Martins,” “The Halls,” or “Jeff Gehart.” A red X crossed out Jezzrow street. Next to the X were written the words, “115 Jezzrow Don’t go here! He’s Beezulbub!” Over the makeshift lamination job, some of the streets were traced with red and green dry erase markers, while some of the black lines were left unmarked. The red and green was Elder B.’s idea. It was Christmas time.

Elder E. still stared at the map, his nose inches away from it. In this silence, Elder B. looked up at the ceiling. “What is that stuff,” he wondered, looking at the small white chunks covering the ceiling. “I think I heard somebody call it popcorn, but that’s gotta be slang. I guess carpenters or roofers or whatever those kind of apartment-makers are called would know what that stuff is. Is it insulation of some sort?” Elder B. put his head down and his hands in his coat pockets, and let out a long breath. “God didn’t pick my streets, did He? I picked them, didn’t I? And does Elder E. really know what he’s doing? Does he? I know I shouldn’t question that. It’s really bad for me to question that, isn’t it? Of course he’s in tune with the other side; he’s a zone leader; he’s been out here for almost two years. Oh, God, what do You think of me?” Such were Elder B.’s thoughts on that cold morning in Martinsville, Virginia, in December, 2002.

“OK.” Elder E. said, after writing down the last street name. “Let’s see if there’s any same ones today. You go first.”

“Beaumont, Franklin, Round Street, Fourteenth Avenue, Oak.”

“OK. We got two of the same today. Franklin and Fourteenth. Humph.” Elder E. paused. “You didn’t look off me, did you?”

Elder B. shook his head.

“You can be honest with me.”

B. looked down.

“I don’t want you to lie to me. But if you say you didn’t look off me, then I’ll believe you, Elder B.” Elder E. put his pen and index card in his pocket. “OK. Well, let’s go do Franklin and Fourteenth Avenue.”

Elder E. and Elder B. knelt on the carpet, putting their elbows on the loveseat, the only furniture in the room. Elder E. interlocked his fingers. Elder B. put his forehead on his fists. They knelt at opposing ends of the loveseat, with several feet between them.

Elder B. was still new. He had only been in the mission field four months, compared to the almost two years that Elder E. had been evangelizing. He clearly remembers receiving his mission call, about six months earlier. It was a warm Saturday morning in Thatcher, Arizona, where Elder B., then called Telemoonfa, was attending Eastern Arizona College, majoring in theatre. Without expecting to get his call that day, only two and a half weeks after submitting the necessary papers, he walked to the post office. Telemoonfa turned the dial on his combination lock post office box, opened it, and got the letter: a large white envelope from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. A smile spread across his face as his heart raced faster. He went home, opened the letter, and read, “Telemoonfa, you are hereby called to serve as a full-time missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You are assigned to labor in the West Virginia Charleston mission. It is anticipated that you will serve for a period of 24 months.” After excitedly reading and rereading the letter, he knelt and offered a prayer of gratitude.

“Whose turn is it?”

“I don’t remember.”

“You never remember. Humph. I’ll say it. Dear Father in Heaven, we approach Thee now, Father, and we pray. We thank Thee that we are Thy missionaries, that we have time set apart to teach the gospel to our spirit brothers and sisters. We want to bring more people into Thy Kingdom. We have a righteous desire to have many families in our teaching pool and many… many sheaves laden upon our backs, dear Father. We ask for Thy help today, Father, as we do Thy work. Please bless us that we can be instruments in Thy hands to share the love that we hold in our hearts. We know we need Thy Spirit to guide us to those who are seeking the truth and we ask for that Spirit now. We love thee, Father, and we love our brothers and sisters. We love them with all of our hearts, and we go to serve Thee today. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.”

The missionaries stood up and went towards the door. E. exited first, and B. followed. In the cold, Elder B. locked their apartment door. As Elder E. stepped down the icy staircase, Elder B. considered shoving him.

!!!

Sincerely,
Telemoonfa